Intel Xeon E5-2600 v4 Broadwell-EP Review

Intel Test Platforms And How We Test

How We Test

We tested the Broadwell-EP-based Xeon E5-2697 v4 on both an Intel Software Development Platform server and the production-ready Supermicro SYS-1028U-TN10RT+. We tested the Haswell-EP-based Xeon E5-2699 v3 and E5-2643 v3 on the Intel Software Development Platform. And we tested the Ivy Bridge-based (v2) CPUs in Intel's Server System R2208GZ4GC. 


Cores
Threads
Frequency
Max Turbo Boost
Cache
TDP
Max. Memory Speed
Socket
E5-2697 v4
18
36
2.3GHz
3.6GHz
45MB
145W
DDR4-2400
FCLGA2011-3
E5-2699 v3
18
36
2.3GHz
3.6GHz
45MB
145W
DDR4-2133
FCLGA2011-3
E5-2643 v3
6
12
3.4GHz
3.7GHz
20MB
135W
DDR4-2133
FCLGA2011-3
E5-2690 v2
10
20
3.0GHz
3.6GHz
25MB
130W
DDR3-1866
FCLGA2011
E5-2680 v2
10
20
2.8GHz
3.6GHz
25MB
115W
DDR3-1866
FCLGA2011
E5-2670 v2
10
20
2.5GHz
3.3GHz
25MB
115W
DDR3-1866
FCLGA2011

We benchmark with the open source Linux-Bench script, which is available on Linux-Bench.com and GitHub. ServeTheHome and others in the open source community maintain it. The suite runs from an Ubuntu 14.04 LiveCD either on local storage or through a KVM-over-IP connection. The script installs dependencies and runs several well-known independent open source benchmarks that characterize CPU performance.

Intel "Wildcat Pass" S2G3SY1Q Server

Intel sent us a pre-production Grantley-R EP S2G3SY1Q (Wildcat Pass) Broadwell Qualification system for our tests. The 2U test bed came with two Xeon E5-2697 v4 CPUs with 18 Hyper-Threaded cores and 45MB of shared cache apiece (that's 2.5MB of last-level cache per core). These beefy CPUs feature a non-AVX base clock of 2.3GHz and a maximum Turbo Boost frequency of 3.6GHz. The E5-2697 v4 offers a base clock of 2.0GHz and a Turbo Boost ceiling of 2.6GHz under AVX-optimized workloads.

The test platform features Intel's C610 chipset family and includes eight 32GB SK hynix DDR4-2400 DIMMs (HMA84GL7AMR4N-UH). Two riser cards enable PCIe connectivity, but weren't used in our testing.

Intel provides this server for use as a software development platform; it's not designed for use in a production environment. As such, it lacks some of the features that facilitate redundancy, such as dual PSUs. One of the PSU bays is covered, but the other houses a single 900W power supply.

Intel Server System R2208GZ4GC

An Intel R2208GZ4GC functions as one of the workhorses in our enterprise storage lab, and it has the scratches, bumps and bruises to prove it. At its heart, the server features the S2600GZ motherboard (C602 chipset) housed in a production-class chassis with the requisite redundant and hot-swappable fans, along with dual hot-swappable 750W power supplies.

Two riser cards have seen more than their fair share of RAID controllers, HBAs and PCIe SSDs, but again, they weren't required for today's benchmarks. We installed 64GB of Kingston DDR3-1600 memory in 8GB modules. Other notable platform features include quad 1GbE connections and an RMM4 module for remote management.

This thread is closed for comments
22 comments
    Your comment
  • utroz
    Hmm well we know that Broadwell-E chips must be coming very very soon if Intel let this info out.
  • bit_user
    Wasn't there supposed to be a 4-core 5.0 GHz SKU? Single-thread performance still matters, in many cases.
  • turkey3_scratch
    328798 said:
    Wasn't there supposed to be a 4-core 5.0 GHz SKU? Single-thread performance still matters, in many cases.


    In most server applications it doesn't matter as much as multithreaded performance. If you need single-core strength, getting a consumer chip is actually better, but you probably aren't running a server if single-threaded is your focus.
  • PaulyAlcorn
    Quote:
    Wasn't there supposed to be a 4-core 5.0 GHz SKU? Single-thread performance still matters, in many cases.

    I read the rumors on that as well, but nothing official has surfaced as of yet to my knowledge.
  • bit_user
    1712875 said:
    328798 said:
    Wasn't there supposed to be a 4-core 5.0 GHz SKU? Single-thread performance still matters, in many cases.
    In most server applications it doesn't matter as much as multithreaded performance. If you need single-core strength, getting a consumer chip is actually better, but you probably aren't running a server if single-threaded is your focus.
    Try telling that to high-frequency traders. I'm sure they want the reliability features of Xeons (ECC, for example), but the highest clock speed available.

    And the fact that Intel even released low-core high-clock SKUs is an acknowledgement of this continuing need. Clock just not as high as I'd read. With the other specs basically matching the Haswell version, the only difference is ~5% IPC improvement. Seems pretty poor improvement, for a die-shrink.
  • firefoxx04
    Would nice to have a quad core xeon that turbos at 4.4ghz just like the 4790k. I had to go with a 4690k when building an autocad system because it only uses one core and needs that core to be fast... this means i have to sacrifice ecc support.
  • bit_user
    2074532 said:
    Quote:
    Wasn't there supposed to be a 4-core 5.0 GHz SKU? Single-thread performance still matters, in many cases.
    I read the rumors on that as well, but nothing official has surfaced as of yet to my knowledge.

    On wccftech (not the most reliable source, I know), they claimed:

    Model: Intel Xeon E5-2602 V4
    Cores/threads: 4/8
    Base clock: 5.1 GHz
    Turbo clock: TBD
    L3 Cache: 5 MB
    TDP: 165W

    Given what we know about 2.5 MB/core of L3 Cache, the 5 MB figure sounds suspicious. It's conceivable they could disable some to hit the target TDP, I guess.
  • firefoxx04
    We cant get skylake to consistently hit 5ghz... why would a xeon chip suddenly hit 5ghz?
  • JamesSneed
    211300 said:
    We cant get skylake to consistently hit 5ghz... why would a xeon chip suddenly hit 5ghz?


    I'm not saying the 5Ghz rumor is true but Intel has always known which chips can hit higher clocks during certification if the chip is a top end or low end chip cores disabled etc. I'm sure they could cherry pick a few to sell for $$$ if they wanted. Now are they I have no real idea.
  • bit_user
    211300 said:
    We cant get skylake to consistently hit 5ghz... why would a xeon chip suddenly hit 5ghz?
    Well, I was surprised, too.

    There are obviously things you can do in chip design that allow one to reach different timing targets. And I was hoping they might've refined their 14 nm process, since the time the first Broadwells launched. So, I thought, with more TDP headroom afforded by this socket (roughly double what Skylake has to work with), maybe they could do it.

    I thought maybe Intel was addressing some pent-up demand for high clockspeed applications. That said, it seemed particularly odd in Broadwell, given that it generally seems oriented towards lower clockspeed / lower power applications.

    But maybe it was a typo, or even a blatant lie, in order to track down leakers.
  • alidan
    Quote:
    We cant get skylake to consistently hit 5ghz... why would a xeon chip suddenly hit 5ghz?


    proper binning and sold specifically as that because of what it hits, this could double/triple the value of the chip at least compared to other lower binned versions.
  • thor220
    Quote:
    Wasn't there supposed to be a 4-core 5.0 GHz SKU? Single-thread performance still matters, in many cases.


    A really high clock on a server platform seems like an overclocker's dream to me. Stability and performance. Not to mention that server processors use solder instead of that cheap paste Intel uses in their consumer processors.
  • RedJaron
    Doesn't sound right to me. A server chip binned that high would be ridiculously expensive, more than even the 5960X. I can't see then selling more than a couple hundred to the richest and most eccentric computer enthusiasts.
  • LudeMasta99
    How many FPS will I get in Crysis with this?
  • Adriano Bordignon
    How does Photoshop behave under this cpu?
  • bit_user
    570460 said:
    Doesn't sound right to me. A server chip binned that high would be ridiculously expensive, more than even the 5960X. I can't see then selling more than a couple hundred to the richest and most eccentric computer enthusiasts.
    FWIW, IBM introduced Power6 processors in 2007 & 2009 that were clocked up to 5 GHz. No doubt, they cost an arm and a couple legs.
  • Waldek
    Slightly off the topic, but... I was curious about the data centers' power consumption statistics. The article says 416.2 TWh per year. This is true. What the article says incorrectly, however, is that it would be more than 182 countries (of 192). The correct example would be that this gives the datacenters of the world 11th place in the power consumption ranking in the world. For example, the UK alone consumes 320 TWh (and is currently number 11 worldwide). The datacenters consume currently ca. 5% of the world's power usage...
  • sincreator
    Getting a chip to hit 5.0ghz or more stable is pretty rare to say the least. Silicon Lottery https://siliconlottery.com/collections/2011-3 specializes in picking out binned chips to sell, and they don't even have one model that is clocked that high.
  • PaulyAlcorn
    Quote:
    Slightly off the topic, but... I was curious about the data centers' power consumption statistics. The article says 416.2 TWh per year. This is true. What the article says incorrectly, however, is that it would be more than 182 countries (of 192). The correct example would be that this gives the datacenters of the world 11th place in the power consumption ranking in the world. For example, the UK alone consumes 320 TWh (and is currently number 11 worldwide). The datacenters consume currently ca. 5% of the world's power usage...


    The article does not state that it is more than the *combined* total of 182 countries, merely that it consumes more power than each of them compared individually. You are right,mentioning that it would place 11th in the world is probably a better way of stating the statistic.
  • bit_user
    248772 said:
    Getting a chip to hit 5.0ghz or more stable is pretty rare to say the least. Silicon Lottery https://siliconlottery.com/collections/2011-3 specializes in picking out binned chips to sell, and they don't even have one model that is clocked that high.
    Sure, but there's a difference between binning chips designed to run at a lower clock vs. actually designing a chip to hit higher clock speeds. There's no reason Intel can't make chips that clock higher, but they don't choose to because they think there's not sufficient market demand for something which burns so much power. AMD tried this with 225 W TDP Bulldozers, a few years back.

    I remember reading that the Pentium 4 was originally designed to scale up to 10 GHz, by the end of its production. Of course, back then, the only way they could hit those speeds was to use really long pipelines composed of very simple stages. Then, when they discovered that leakage of newer process nodes was higher than anticipated, they were left with a very inefficient architecture that was stuck below the clock speeds that would've made it competitive.

    These days, I think Intel could do it without such a drastic architectural tradeoff. But it still comes down to a power vs. clock, no matter what.
  • utroz
    328798 said:
    570460 said:
    Doesn't sound right to me. A server chip binned that high would be ridiculously expensive, more than even the 5960X. I can't see then selling more than a couple hundred to the richest and most eccentric computer enthusiasts.
    FWIW, IBM introduced Power6 processors in 2007 & 2009 that were clocked up to 5 GHz. No doubt, they cost an arm and a couple legs.


    Those IBM chips had a really long pipeline to allow clock speeds that high as well as an SOI process node basically built from the ground up for them. I wonder what version of 14nm Intel is using for Broadwell-E/EP/EX as I know they had one version they used for the Broadwell-U,Y,H,DT(C) and when they moved to Skylake they used an updated version of 14nm. Is it possible that Broadwell_E/EP/EX are using the updated 14nm process?
  • pastorpastor
    nice review, but I'm deceived, there is no important 3d rendering benchmarks like cinebench 3dsmax / VRAY